I would think when other musicians like a musicians skills.Its like a professional musician you know he's good when you see him playing on a lot of different artists albums alot.They make other musicians sound good or better or great because they know how to use there skills.
What makes for a "good" musician?
Different musics require different skill sets, some technical, some not. In a lot of discussions about the talents of musicians, I hear talk mainly in terms of technical ability. I just watched today’s Leland Sklar YouTube video (he posts one everyday), in which he talks about playing "for the song". He recounts a story told him by the famous Hal Blaine, who in the 1970’s had a live gig in Santa Barbara. Hal says that during the set the young bassist was waaay over-playing, showing the world how good he was. After the set the bassist asked Hal what he thought. Hal’s response was: "I think we need a bass player."
There is an alternative view of musicianship, one based on how "musical" a musician is. What makes for musicality? Very simple: playing what the song asks for. Very subjective, right? When John Hiatt was given carte blanche in the choice of backing musicians for the recording of what became his Bring The Family album, he chose Ry Cooder, Nick Lowe, and Jim Keltner. Why were those his choices, rather than a guitarist, bassist, and drummer more renown for their technical "chops" (not that those three are exactly slackers ;-) ? Their musicality. John’s a songwriter, and he rates musicians by how well they play songs, not by how well they merely play their instrument. Those two are NOT synonymous.
But musicality is more than just that, as important as that is. It is one’s basic musical sensitivities, even in regard to the song itself. Example: The first version of "That’s How I Got To Memphis" (a great, great song) I heard was that of Buddy Miller. Listening to his version, you hear why Emmylou Harris has for years employed him as her guitarist, harmony singer, and bandleader. I’ve recently been listening to every available version of the song, including that of the song’s writer, Tom T. Hall. But it wasn’t until I heard a live version (from an old TV show) sung as a duet by Marty Stuart and Bobby Bare, that I realized: both Marty (and his great band The Fabulous Superlatives) and Buddy made a somewhat subtle change to the chord progression on the last line of the final verse ("forgive me if I start to cry", right before the last chorus), inserting a "passing" chord between Tom Hall’s "as written" first and second chords.
Inserting that passing chord required no technical playing expertise, but it did require advanced musical talent. It’s not hard to play, it just SOUNDS cool. That’s the musicianship I listen for.
27 responses Add your response
I agree that there is no one right or probably even 100 right answers to this question. One thing that bugs me sometimes is how touring musicians that aren't technical virtuosos are often demeaned compared to super talented studio musicians. We can all think of lots of prominent rock musicians who are not virtuosos but who are still so fully integral to whatever prominent band that they are in that that band would never have been what they are without them. They might be that way simply because they were willing to tour. A lot of musical masters are not willing to tour for all the fame and money in the world. Touring can be brutal I'm told. Or it might be the connection, both on stage and off, that they have with the rest of the band. To me, all this figures prominently in regard to who the great musicians are. |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oQsKRyihEA This helps put things in perspective from a drummer's POV |
What makes a good musician? The answers are endless but I would say one thing for sure, if you have any 'good musician' in mind and think of a song or work they have performed and then play it to Beethoven, he will listen to it and then come back with his own versions in many different musical formats... On the other hand members of Deep Purple (MK2) were known to be good musicians as they always changed approach on each concert, a lot of spontaneous inclusions usually highlighted between Ritchie Blackmore on guitar and Jon Lord on the Hammond organ. |
@edcyn, by far the loudest band I ever heard live, much louder than The Who. Of course, it was in The Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, a horrendous cement bunker of a room. Their song writing abilities are commonly over-looked. They were as much a Pop band as a Punk one. I like Weezer in the same way I like The Ramones. |
I was startled the first time I saw and heard Yo Yo Ma perform live; he literally "attacked" his cello. I was not AS surprised when I saw how aggressively Elvin Jones played, but my gawd did he hit his drums hard. Made Keith Moon look like a p*ussy! Musicians lacking confidence in their abilities tend to play tentatively, without authority. In a Modern Drummer interview, Tony Williams was asked what drummers he had recently heard who impressed him. His surprising answer was Marc Bell, more commonly known as Marky Ramone! Marc played simply in The Ramones (as the music called for him to do), but with a LOT of authority. |
The late Danny Gatton (himself a virtuoso guitarist) to his new drummer, after the first set of the night: Danny: "Hey, ya know all that fancy sh*t you play?" The drummer: "Yeah." Danny: "Don't." @frogman, you're Miles' quotes are what musicianship wisdom is all about. By the way, when The Band played The Hollywood Bowl in 1970 they asked Miles to open the show for them. Miles' drummer Jack DeJohnette had worked with pianist Bill Evans, a favorite musician of Robbie Robertson and Garth Hudson. Jack and Band drummer/singer Levon Helm became lifelong friends, and Jack includes The Band's "Up On Cripple Creek" (did you know pianist Richard Manuel is the drummer on the song?) in his own band's repertoire. DeJohnette on the Bowl gig: "We got to jam briefly with The Band---nothing formal, without Miles---and really dug their musicianship." |
Thank you all for your answers. It’s a great question and I think one that differentiates between audiophiles and players. They are not mutually exclusive but rare. As I have transitioned from audiophile to musician I see the difference. As I grew up I noticed the difference between players. Leland Slkar is one of my heroes. He played exactly what was right for the song. Paul was not a virtuoso bass player but was tuneful and played exactly what was perfect for the song. Nicky Hopkins was chosen because he knew what to play exactly when the song needed it. Same for Billy Preston, Lyle Mayes, and many more. Not many of those players around today. I miss them. Keep ‘em comin’! |
I know a couple of guitarists and can’t understand why they get obsessed about the technical side of their playing. It’s a shame but they're very hard on themselves and rarely seem satisfied with the accuracy of their performances. I sometimes try to suggest they could, in the words of Bruno Koschmider, to simply "Mach schau, mach schau!" So far my words have fallen on deaf ears despite my protestations that 99% of the audience, myself included didn’t notice or care about any minor technical fluffs. I’d much rather be entertained than bear witness to some bland lifeless technical masterclass. It was often said the Beatles weren’t great musicians but who cares? There’s literally thousands of great technicians out there, but nobody cares because it’s only the music that matters. It either connects, or it doesn’t. |
When it comes to musicianship, I tend to judge subjectively, not objectively. Sure, sheer technical ability is always nice to have but being able to express varieties of moods & emotions is something special to me, and is something that simply eludes some players. I agree, it's legal for listeners to worship different idols. In the 1970's, my buddies considered John McLaughlin the godhead of guitar players, and we all saw him at the Santa Monica Civic during his Inner Mounting Flame tour. But to me he was all flash & zero substance. In contrast, BB King, Clapton, Hendrix, and Jimmy Page could summon oceans of emotion. No matter how often my 1970's jam band's lead guitarist might grimace while bending a note, he was never able to evoke any other emotion than "Ain't I cool." Yeah, I'll always like the guy as a friend. But we could never find common ground with our guitars slung around our necks. |
Was Robert Johnson a "premier musician"? https://www.sacurrent.com/sanantonio/the-only-solid-fact-about-robert-johnson-is-his-music-everything-else-is-up-for-grabs/Content?oid=2242122 |
| Post removed |
MC you have a knack for obfuscation. You say here "Musician" is a technical term (musicians are artists) but elsewhere that technical assessments of technical products like hifi gear including measurements are of questionable value. Good grief! The only consistency I see with your comments is a consistent desire to obfuscate accepted norms so that you can assert your personal opinions more safely. Hey whatever. We are all flawed. Que sera sera. |
millercarbon A good musician is fluent with and able to read music ...Hmmm, that would omit John Lennon and the rest of the Beatles. Dylan. Stevie Wonder. Clapton. It always struck me odd because reading music isn’t difficult. But I learned when I was young and I think that makes a difference. Every Good Boy Deserves Fudge. |
Musician to me is a technical term. A good musician is fluent with and able to read music, move between rhythms, and key signatures, identify themes and variations, and so on. On the drive home last night they were playing the children's song Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, and it sounded just as you remember, a kid pounding on one key at a time no feeling or subtlety or anything. Then a few notes are added. Flourishes and feeling. Minute later you are experiencing a piano concerto. Which it was. Mozart Variations in key of whatever. That's a musician. There's flavors of musicians, like session musicians, able to play different styles to suit the music, as determined by the writer and producer. There's a great example of this on The Eagle's Hell Freezes Over DVD where Don Henley is struggling to get the orchestra to sound right and says Its the blues, we have to give them the blues. There's players, able to read and play music off a sheet. There's performers, able to put on a show while playing. There's ones who combine all these skills and more. So the question what makes for a good musician depends almost entirely on what you think a musician is in the first place. |
A blues festival I attended a few years back is the example that comes to mind about the difference between technical ability and pure magic.Several musicians performed their version of "Walking Blues" over the course of the weekend.Such a huge difference in the way a couple of the guys could bend a note and communicate emotion with subtle vocal inflections. |
Speaking of Miles: “Anybody can play. The note is only 20 percent. The attitude of the motherfu&#r who plays it is 80 percent.” ― Miles Davis “It’s not the notes you play, it’s the notes you don’t play”. -- Miles Davis “I always listen to what I can leave out.” ― Miles Davis Re the basic question “What makes a good musician?”: Some good comments so far and I agree with the OP’s basic premise (and Miles’ 😎). Of course, having great chops does not always mean possessing great musicality. Having said that, having great technical skill sometimes gets a bad rap. Great technical skill opens musical doors that remain shut to players with limited technical skill; even when they are fundamentally good musicians. The important point is that one doesn’t necessarily have to, nor is it always musically appropriate, to go through those doors. A player possessing limited technique can still be a good musician, but it can be.....limiting. While those flurries of notes and/or “complexity” that some players hope will add meaning to their playing are ultimately meaningless and even destructive, there are times when they are just the ticket and what serves the music best. If you don’t have the chops you can’t go there. (Btw, pet peeve. and not meaning to take this in a different direction. “Musicality”. IT IS NOT AN AUDIO TERM! Musicians, not gear, possess musicality). |
It’s not a question of whether someone is a good musician, but as Miles Davis would ask, “can he play?” If you can truly play with other high quality musicians, then the group can take it to the next level and try to make good music. Ultimately it’s not about the song, but the song within the context of a specific group of musicians. A song can have any number of different arrangements that can utilize different roles for the various players. There’s a reason why there are band leaders and record producers. |
Having you own voice is a great attribute, but I’ve heard plenty of musicians of whom that can be said whose playing I don’t care for. One thing I have noticed is that the songwriters I love are fond of the musicality of the same musicians as am I. Coincidence? No, similar musical sensibilities. John Hiatt could have hired, say, Ginger Baker---a drummer some of you may consider "better" than Keltner---but chose Keltner instead. Ginger has a more recognizable style, and you know why? He played for himself, not the song. He played every song the same, not listening for what the song was asking for. IMO, the best drummers "disappear" into the song, much as great actors disappear into their characters. It wasn’t until I heard Hal Blaine, Jim Gordon, Roger Hawkins, Kenny Buttrey, Levon Helm, Russ Kunkel, and their ilk that I realized what made for great drumming. But that’s just me, and as you say t_e_p, taste is completely subjective. Another factor is that I consider "the song" by far the most important ingredient in music (as the script or screenplay is to a movie); I much prefer a superior song performed mediocre to a mediocre song performed superior. |
